If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

So evidently making it illegal for a doctor to perform an abortion because a baby is a certain gender, usually female, is over-reaching government? The government is basically saying that discriminating against a baby based on sex is ok because government shouldn't interfere with a woman's reproductive choices, or unreproductive choices since choice is synonymous with abortion, yet the GOP is the side that has a "war on women"

Sounds legit, and I'd like to say that China, as much of a human right's leading country that it is, had a lovely few years where parents could only have males and they could only have 1 child.

GOP HATES WOMEN BECAUSE WE DON"T WANT WOMEN TO HAVE ABORTIONS PAID BY THE STATE NOR DO WE WANT TO PAY FOR THEIR BC, never mind the fact that Obama is basically saying he opposes making it illegal to discriminate against the sex of a baby in the womb lol

Wow, these liberals are so cracked out holy crackerjacks, dip me in syrup and call me glartek the confuzzled, I will be glad when we get these sexist, racists out of the White house.

p.s perhaps we'd have more women in politics or ceos if women weren't aborting the little girls... because they're girls!

Obama cannot publicly accept any restriction on abortion, because to do so would alienate several of his core constituencies. Feminists and Planned Parenthood see abortion as a sacrament and a cash cow, respectively, while greens see population control as a necessity to prevent environmental damage (they buy off on the Malthusian idea that people are simply "useless eaters", rather than, well, people). Socialists and communists see abortion as a means to undermine family cohesion (pregnancy is a forcing function to marriage) and a promiscuous, hedonistic state is more receptive to their message than a stable, family-oriented one.

However, his refusal to even contemplate restricting abortion for something as petty as sex selection (which almost always favors boys over girls) renders him vulnerable to a number of political arguments. First, the whole war on women thing becomes harder to promote with a straight face when you favor aborting female babies for the crime of being female. Even the Taliban isn't that misogynistic. Second, the use of abortion for sex selection raises the specter of China's one-child policy, and their program of forced abortions and infanticide. At what point would Obama object to the killing of a baby for being female? First trimester? Second? Third? The Chinese have forced women to abort at every stage of pregnancy, and even killed babies shortly after. Here's one description from Stephen Mosher, who documented Chinese abortion practices during his doctoral candidacy at Stanford:

Mr. Mosher subsequently published his findings in the widely-acclaimed book Broken Earth: The Rural Chinese, and now serves a president of the Population Research Institute. He describes his turn from being a vaguely pro-choice academic to pro-life activist, beginning with his witnessing the women undergoing forced abortions:

“They were crying, begging for mercy and praying for their dying children. It’s one thing to think about abortion in the abstract, but when you see a baby at seven-months gestation, it’s a baby — truly one of us.”

In hindsight, he says that visit to the Chinese abortion facility forced him to abandon his casual, untested adherence to moral relativism and embark on an uncharted spiritual pilgrimage.

“On a scale of evil from 1 to 10, this was a 10. And if there is absolute evil, I concluded that there also must be a counterbalancing absolute good — or the universe would be truly mad.”

This is ugly stuff, but it's stuff that the abortionists cannot allow to see the light of day, because ultimately, this is where their policies lead us. So, okay, Barry, when is it not okay to abort a baby?

The idea sounds noble, but how do you suggest we stop sex selective abortions?

China stops them by not allowing patients to know the gender of the baby until birth. Okay. I don't think we're going to do that.

It's pretty much going to be based on hear say. I think a person could end up on charges just because some gossip said an abortion was performed for sex selective reasons.

The pro-life movement seriously needs to go through the front door. Stop trying to go through the back. I'm not saying not to work to end abortion. All I'm saying is go through the front door.

Or, we could just prohibit abortions after the sex of the fetus is known, unless there is a documented birth defect or threat to the life of the mother. After all, Planned Parenthood already objects to showing a woman any ultrasound images of her baby prior to an abortion, and even managed to obscure the fact that almost all surgical abortions require ultrasound so that the abortionist can see the fetus while he removes it. We're also constantly told that a fetus isn't a human being unless the mother chooses to treat it as such, so if a woman asks to know the gender of her baby, clearly she is no longer treating it as a mass of cells. This should satisfy the pro-abortion lobby's demand that women who solicit abortions be kept in the dark.

You're all assuming this was a valiant, noble effort to save the lives of bayyyyybeeeees. It wasn't. It was just a cynical show vote to try to make Dems look bad (since they would be voting against something that looked very apple pie). Trent Franks, who introduced the bill, said so himself - that it was a GOP "strategy". Even if it passed the House, it would never be touched by the Senate. It was intended to make the GOP look good in the eyes of those who are pro-life, and to demonize the Dems, without actually accomplishing anything. And.... voila! It didn't accomplish anything.

"Today, [the American voter] chooses his rulers as he buys bootleg whiskey, never knowing precisely what he is getting, only certain that it is not what it pretends to be." - H.L. Mencken